Monarchs Glen

Sen Byrd dies and the Chicago Gun Ban is ruled Unconstitutional.

AWESOME!

Cool, to take people protection away is wrong.......

I refuse to celebrate anyone death
Even a grand wizard of the KKK who voted against the civil rights laws yet became a Democrat Icon
I am oh so glad Mavs neighbors can own guns now

I'd like to hear Mav's thoughts, since we've been debating this topic for years now over Chicago.

The Opening Post is actually my Facebook Status right now, and this is the first response I got:

"I think it is always a fine day to be an American. Where's your patriotism?"

To which I replied:
"My patriotism tends to sparkle more brightly when inequality and injustice is struck down from either God above or 5 Supreme Court Justices!"

I don't feel any twinges of guilt in relishing the enjoyment of a rotten mans downfall to the grave. His turn on Earth is over, and we are the victors for it.

Besides, apparently the only way to get such creatures out of office(Hey Ted Kennedy!) is for them to die of old age.

I have never questioned your patriotism Atla
I doubt anyone who has known you has either

sooo.....who is this Byrd person?

Byrd was the longest serving member of the US Congress, in the history of the US Congress. He was also a Liberal which presumably is why Atla is glad that he's dead.

Sad Nether when an Australian has school you on your own government

Byrd was a pretty cool dude. You would have loved to have him represent you if he actually represented your beliefs.

Grunt you may call it sad but I call it..well....sad I suppose. Never heard of the guy and all he did was google the guy anyway.

he gun control debate is a difficult one for a variety of reasons. The main problem is that it pits different ideologies against each other. If people were consistent on their application of these ideologies Id probably have less problem with the ruling, but its so apparent that Supreme Court Justices tailor the law based on their personal opinion, that it leaves the rest of us to suffer.

AnywayI dont agree with the current interpretation of the Second Amendment. My interpretation differs from the current courts, and therefore my opinion is that the govt, state or federal, can regulate people's right to bear arms, but it can not restrict those in the militia from bearing arms.

The text of the Amendment reads as follows (although there may be a different text that was actually signed by the states):

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I read the amendment as saying that the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The reason I read it this way is that in the beginning of our country most of the "army" was comprised of militia, which represented the states. The state militias were the only thing that would be able to stand against the federal govt abuse of power. Therefore it was necessary to have an amendment that stated that the right of the state militias to have arms, shall not be infringed by the federal govt. I think this is the most logical reading and makes the most sense given the context of the historical period and the actual phrasing of the amendment.

It would make absolutely no sense to reference the militia in the Amendment, have it be the first clause (and therefore arguably the most important clause) and then give the statement no weight in the interpretation of how we read the clause. If the founding fathers wanted all American's to have an unlimited right to weapons (which is what this amendment would grant), they could have easily written the Amendment as follows:

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed."

So the question is, why do we give no weight to the arguably most important statement of the clause?

My only answer is revisionist history. When a Democrat judge does this, you hear it called "liberal judges" who "rewrite the constitution". This is where my problem with ideologies come in. If people want to be strict constructionists in term of the constitution, then do it. But dont just pick and choose when you are going to take the constitution as cannon and when you are going to rewrite it to suit your own needs.

That being said, this argument has absolutely no legal weight. Barring some major change in the composition of the court (ie I became Chief Judge of the Supreme Court) you will never see this argument made or relied upon. The law believes in Stare Decisis (unless the Supreme Court decides it doesnt for that opinion), which means that you let what has been decided stay decided (there are innumerable exceptions made, the most recent being with how much money Corporations can donate for campaigns).

As for the application of current law to the 2nd Amendment. I think that its a sham and why Im not invited to Conservative parties. Im fine with state rights, Im fine saying that a state can decide whether or not it wants to allow gay marriage. I dont agree with it, but I understand the idea that certain states may different ideas on what is best for their state.

What Im not fine with, is picking and choosing when states rights are going to matter.

Here is the Illinois Constitution:

SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the
individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.

The constitution of Illinois is crystal clear, police power trumps your right to bear arms. You will also notice, there is absolutely no mention of the militia (as compared to the federal constitution). I believe that the Illinois constitution is the more accurately written amendment (unless you read the federal one as only applying to the militia). It would also make the federal govt constitution make more sense, as the fed constitution would be preventing the fed from regulating the state's right to arm its militia, as opposed to the state regulating its own citizens.

Most people who are pro-gun do not believe that you should be able to own a nuclear weapon, or any type of weapon that you can dream of. They do not believe that terrorists should be able to have machine guns, or convicted murderers be able to purchase a cruise missile. But that is the literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, if you take it as applying to all citizens.

Its clear as day, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, there is no qualification, there is no exception. Over time the Supreme Court has decided to read into the Second Amendment the idea that the govt can restrict "some" weapons, but they use subjective tests and basically make it up as they go along. In essence they are saying that the police power of the govt can decide when a weapon is so dangerous, that the weapon is some how no longer privileged 2nd amendment protection.

The Illinois constitution is far more clear and makes far more sense. You can own any weapon, carry any weapon at any time, subject to police power of the state. Therefore the state can make any law limiting your right to bear arms, so long is it based on the states power to police itself and protect the people. So if the City of Chicago believes that the people of the city will be safer if no one can own a handgun, or be able to bring a gun into court, that is okay (side note you cant bring a gun into federal court either, under the 2nd amendment shouldnt I be able to? If guns make me safer, wouldnt I be safer in court if I could pack my own heat?), it is their right to do it.

No one forces you to live in Chicago, no one has to live here. There are plenty of cities, counties etc where you can have guns, etc. But if the majority of the people of chicago, believe that we would be safer if no one can have a gun, why cant we make that decision?

I understand the argument of tyranny of the majority, but I dont believe that it applies to this situation. The people of Chicago are not using their majority to unfairly hurt a minority (Ie the people of Chicago pass a law that any minority has to give a white person $1 when they see them on the street or go to jail). They are instead using their majority to make a difficult decision on what is best for everyone's safety. Its not like we are voting against guns because "Well we just hate gun owners" or that there is some underlying motive. Its because based on our life, based on our experience, we believe that this city would be safer if no one could legally own a gun. People may have different opinions, just like they may differ on how high Chicago sales tax is, or any of the other innumerable differences that set 1 city or state apart from another, but that is why we have a Republic. So that if we have differences we decide them on a vote of the people. A Republic is not having a group of 9 people, none of them ever living in the State of Illinois, maybe a few of them having lived in Chicago for longer than a month, making decisions on how we should live our life.

So that is my argument against this ruling. That a state should be able to interpret the 2nd Amendment based on their own constitution. That each of these constitutions were accepted by the federal govt when the state entered the Union (which by implication means that the Federal govt accepted the States constitution as being constitutional under the Federal Constitution), and therefore the State should have the ultimate power to interpret its own law and rules.

What really gets me, is that the same justices who will expand the Federal govt's power beyond comprehension when it comes to crime, gun rights, making drugs illegal, morality, etc. Are the same justices who say that they are for state rights.

You cant have it both ways, it just doesnt make sense. If you believe in state rights, you should mourn this decision.

Not my most elegant post, and may be rambling in some places but that is my opinion. Not based on legal doctrines, just the common sense approach which I believe is lacking in our court system today.

I read a shitload of political news and international news. It'd be hard to not have some idea who Byrd was. I googled to make sure I was thinking of the right guy - but his name comes up every time anyone in any kind of political authority is mentioned in association with the Klan, especially after the whole 'white niggers' thing. He was also pretty vocal about gay marriage - which is one of the topics I follow pretty closely.

I have a feeling that me saying anything about guns on these boards is a bad idea, so I'll just limit myself to largely agreeing with Mav.

Nato's pic is a classic *chuckles*

Mav, I don't think your post (which makes perfect sense and is well thought through) was what Atla was hoping to get with his initial post. How dare you intellectualify a thread intended to celebrate someone's death in?

Yes well, apparently Byrd was a Champion of Civil Rights...according to some media fuckheads.

Ironic that on the same day that race hater died, blacks are allowed to own guns in Chicago(37% of the population - I checked).

Here's the problem Mav. I'm not gonna argue your post, cause it's long winded and I'm not that interested in a debate tonight.

What it comes down to, is you're willing to believe that the Government will only limit your rights with no animosity and a good reasoning.

I believe, that Governments are inherently abusive of power and I demand to exercise my rights to their fullest.

My side has the entire past history of every government that has ever existed to prove my point. You, on the other hand, only have today's Western Nations to use. And that's because they haven't run their course yet.

I also have hundreds of quotes from our founding fathers, as well as the Federalist Papers, that determine EXACTLY what the Second Amendment meant. I also got two pivotal SCOTUS Case's with rulings also. (Well one, I ain't read McDonald vs Chicago yet).

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -Jefferson

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -Madison

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." -Mason

"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" -Sam Adams

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." -Richard Henry Lee

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -Hamilton

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." -Sam Adams

Anyways, I can go on and on for hours.

The other difference between us is. You think modern times mean we can 'tweak' the Bill of Rights to whatever suits us. While we are allowed to add Amendments, we are not allowed to simply interpret the Constitution however we want. Regardless of how the American Language and Grammar may have changed.

Those are the two big differences between us.

I still maintain that I am right. ;p

I believe, that Governments are inherently abusive of power and I demand to exercise my rights to their fullest.

I'm not sure why but that statement/belief makes me so puzzled as to why you enlisted in the military. You argue against the governments control over what you can and can't own or do, yet in your every day life your whole entire job is to do nothing but what the government tells you to do.

I'd say its an oxymoron but you would probably think I'm just trying to insult you

I stop just short of being glad someone is dead who I did not personally wish death on, but I do admit that Byrd was on my Death List, and I will gladly take the points for him.

You mean Larry Byrd is dead? How sad there's alot of people in Boston who's grieving.......

Atla wrote:The other difference between us is. You think modern times mean we can 'tweak' the Bill of Rights to whatever suits us. While we are allowed to add Amendments, we are not allowed to simply interpret the Constitution however we want. Regardless of how the American Language and Grammar may have changed.

Updating, or entirely rewriting a nation's constitution is a necessity. How can a constitution which is written ages ago be deemed valid forever? If that hadn't been done in the past, we'd still be backwards as can be. Even assuming that the American founding fathers were brilliant visionaries, you cannot expect them to construct a bill of rights which is valid forever. Times change. Laws which make perfect sense in the 1700s can be backwards and in the 2000s or 2100s. Once that is the case, the constitution MUST be updated.

I agree that governments are at times abusive of power (though not usually). That's why they need armies: they must be able to flex their muscles. However, I don't trust any old individual either. Individuals don't have checks and balances worth mentioning. Governments do. So to leave all individuals free to do as they please within certain bounds ("to exercise their rights to the fullest", as you put it), is more dangerous than to trust a democratically elected government to limit said rights within the system of checks and balances.

To paraphrase some dead guy
Those who are willing to give up their liberties for security deserve neither

Mavs entire argument is that the right to bear arms is outdated and we should give it up so we can decrease crime aka security

That in itself would be bad enough but gun bans have been shown to not decrease crime